Censorship In Schools

Issues of censorship in public schools are contests between the exercise of discretion and the exercise of a Constitutional right. The law

In modern society today, freedom of speech has been a main concern to delinquents as to what they say on the web. Although, cyberbullying has turned into a major issue online that has gotten the schools’ attention and turn towards the security of their students. To accomplish nurturing their students’ safety, they have punished pupils for what they say on the Internet that is harmful in account of others. Alternatively, the Constitution believes this goes against the First Amendment and violates the students’ rights. Schools should be authorized to limit students’ online speech to decrease the matter of cyberbullying which has affected us in many ways.

The purposes of schools include protecting and educating its students. Therefore, naturally, when a student is cyberbullying someone else, the school seeks to intervene. However, many argue that a school’s intervention of its students’ online speech is in violation of their First Amendment rights. Should schools be allowed to limit students’ online speech? That is, should schools be allowed to punish the things its students post online, even if they are done outside of school, and from their personal devices? The answer is clearly yes. From the concept, to the precedence, to the data, to a letter from the US Department of Education, evidences everywhere supports limiting students’

Censorship cases often bring about debates over students’ first amendment rights. Students’ first amendment rights are important to preserve so that students can not be excluded from meaningful works or literature. It is understandable for the government to design educational plans as a way to get its voice into classrooms, but “the truth-promoting function of the First Amendment provides no reason, however, to question the right of students to explore a variety of ideas and perspectives, and to form and express ideas of their own” (Brown, 1994, p. 30). Schools already place a restriction on religious material or material addressing current political controversy (Brown, 1994).

First off, limiting students’ online speech is unconstitutional. The first amendment clearly states, “Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech…” Which says that, for the most part, we can say whatever we want. In Gitlow v. New York the Supreme Court decided that first amendment applies to other levels of government, including public schools. What all this amounts too is that public schools are required by the constitution to protect their students’ freedom of speech. So, if a school was to limit any student’s online speech, the school is entirely abridging his/her rights.

There is a book out there that talks about a topic that you do not agree with. While you may find the book offensive, others may find it inspiring or a reflection of their life. These varying points of view are what often lead to people calling for a ban of a certain book in a school or public library. This brings to light a topic that impacts all of us in one way or another, censorship in the form of book bans. This leads to a topic that can be the center of debate for many, whether or not we should allow the censorship of books, or other forms of media, in our libraries. And by censoring books, we are referring to taking them off of the shelves. Of course, many people have strong opinions on this. Coincidentally, I also have an opinion. My opinion is that we should not censor books, while making you understand why the idea of censorship in our school and public libraries goes against the fundamental values and freedoms that we hold dearly as citizens of the United States.

In a statement by Laura W. Murphy and Michael W. Macleod-Bell, it is stated, “...that any restriction specifically aimed at [limiting] the speech rights of [people under age 18] in the new electronic forum is a step in the wrong direction and not in keeping with the ideals of our constitutional framework” (Document F). Limiting free speech is violating the right of free speech, so it would be unconstitutional to limit students’ online speech. During the J.S. v. Blue Mountain School District case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that, “Under Tinker, therefore, the School District violated J.S.’s First Amendment free speech rights when it suspended her for creating the profile” (Document D). When one punishes students for online speech, they are violating free speech rights for students outlined by Tinker. This makes it unfair for schools to limit online

Students do not always realize that their free speech can go against certain limits that the Supreme Court has issued on this freedom. The US Department of Education Office for Civil Rights suggests that harassment creates a hostile environment when the conduct is sufficiently severe or persistent so as to interfere with or limit a students' ability to participate in or benefit from the services, activities, or opportunities offered by the school. (Doc. G) In consonance with this, it is the school's responsibility to address harassment incidents to protect students' privacy rights. Allowing full access to the first amendment in schools can often result in the violation of the fourth amendment by infringing privacy rights. There are many forms of harassment that can violate students' civil rights. According to the same department, harassment based on race, color, national origin, sex, or disability violates the civil rights laws that the OCR enforces. (Doc. G) Cyberbullying often falls into these categories which are all violations of civil rights, and many schools may not have proper standards for this violation. It is the school's responsibility to protect the civil rights of students, teachers, and administrators, so they must take a stand against discrimination, including online speech. Not only does cyberbullying contravene with civil rights, it also causes emotional

Should a school be able to censor their students? This question has reached the supreme court multiple times, such as in this case, or in Tinker vs. Des Moines. While restricting a freedom may be annoying, it can be necessary, but when is it dictatorship, and when is it necessary? That is what is questioned in this court case. The U.S. Supreme Court had a difficult decision in the court case of Hazelwood vs. Kuhlmeier, and they were right in their ruling, because even though censorship is often overused, in the classroom, it is often needed, and though the fear of a dictatorship in any place is often scary, it is needed in a classroom full of rowdy minors, even in my experience many of my classmates have inappropriate outbursts.

Are the Web Filters at Your High School Too Restrictive? Web filters in many high schools are very restricting and placing a pause on a student’s learning. Some high schools may have websites that are completely blocked off but the administration does not realize that a student could use that website to help educate the student. The web filter system should be set up to where a notification will be sent to the teacher and the teacher will then approve or disapprove the website for the student. High schools say that the websites are blocked off because they are categorized as, games, inappropriate, forums, social media, and more.

Since there has not been a ruling in this case, the supporters of the censorship laws had to try and find a way to get the internet censored to children. So in the year 2000, Congress passed the Children's Internet Protection Act, which is aimed at the computers in the schools and libraries that the children would have access to. This law was limited to "only the schools and libraries that participated in certain federal programs such as, receiving federal money for technology". The schools and libraries that received this money were required to "install filtering software on all internet terminals to block access to sites with child pornography, obscene material, and material that is harmful to minors". My opinion on this law is that it is even better than the firs one. They are very similar, as you can tell from their names, there is very little changed in the names of the laws. I think that the sites that a minor can look at should be filtered. This way they cannot look at things that can be harmful to them.

Even with the best intentions of censoring the internet to remove inappropriate topics, the educational site will be blocked alike. For instance, if a person is trying to read information on a controversial topic, such as sexuality, drug use, or sources containing profanity, they may not be able to access the needed resources. Without these online resources, people will not have the resources to self-educate themselves on a given topic (Poland). The American Civil Liberties Union launched the “Don’t Filter Me” campaign after obtaining many reports from students who reported being “blocked from accessing websites about college scholarships for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender teenagers; anti-bullying resources; and activities for student-led gay-straight alliances” (Block). After the campaign reports were filled that schools were blocking LGBT-supportive websites. However, students could access websites that condemned homosexuality (Block). This filtering is sending students the wrong message. It is sending a message that being gay, bisexual, or transgender is wrong and should be hidden. By censoring many sites, schools are limiting students’ options to get help if need be. Students will not be able to visit anti-bullying sites, suicide hotlines, or religious organizations that are online to offer help (Block). Also, if a student is writing a research paper and is looking up information online, they

When people think about things being censored they think about TV and Radio stations; they don't think about computers. For example when you have an educational video to look up and it happens to be on youtube that sucks because it's one of the major websites blocked. School websites are too restrictive on what can and cannot be searched. As students we will have to learn how to evaluate the accuracy of the website with all the filters we have. The filters tell us which websites we can and cannot use. According to Michael Gonchar from The New York Times “Overly restrictive filtering of educational websites reaching far beyond the requirements of the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA). Students, teachers, and school librarians in many schools are frustrated daily when they discover legitimate educational websites blocked by filtering software installed by their school.” I completely understand blocking things for students such as Facebook, Twitter and Snapchat but blocking educational sites such as Youtube for example, yes it has some inappropriate content but can't the school pay for a better program that leaves the programs that are going to benefit us but also block out the bad stuff on that website. Some of the most popular web filters bought by schools are lightspeed, web content filtering, Umbrella and many more. Filtering programs “screen an incoming Web page to determine whether some or all of it should

Internet censorship causes students to not be able to freely research topics that could be beneficial to them. It also takes away valuable tools that could help students do homework and review for classes (Fuglei).

Professor Sam Wineburg of Stanford University adamantly opposes the practice of schools blocking students from certain websites and databases such as Wikipedia, Twitter, and Instagram. Dr. Wineburg suggests that if students only have access to information chosen and filtered by the institution, their ability to choose what to believe, and how to think will not develop. If students do not have access to sites such as Wikipedia, once they are able to browse freely, they will be unable to tell what is reliable. By imposing these restrictions, schools are failing to allow students to think freely. More importantly, they are depriving students of furthering their intelligence by choosing themselves what information is valid and what is not. These constraints essentially tell students what to believe; therefore, once they go beyond classroom doors and browse freely, they will be incapable of finding sources on their own. Furthermore, blocking sites only worsens the spread of fake news, since students believe everything they read. I agree with Dr. Wineburg in that schools should not block certain websites. Blocking students from sources or only allowing certain online databases not only limits students’ ability to expand their knowledge, but harms their free thinking and forces them to believe the information placed in front of them, ultimately contributing to students spreading fake news.